FUSsa-talk Mailing List: Fwd: Armies or Police?

[Robert Tapp (rtapp4]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert Tapp <tappx001 [at] umn.edu>
> Date: December 31, 2009 11:55:07 AM EST
> To: Humanist Institute Discussion List <hidisc [at] humanistinstitute.org>
> 
> 
> The recent terror incidents on airlines have again raised the issue of 
> whether it makes sense to speak of a <war> on terror. If the source of terror 
> is a worldwide network with shifting bases, or a disturbed individual, then 
> <war> -- which historically has referred to engagements with countries and 
> massed armies -- may be a very misleading term. And if the aim of war is to 
> increase security, we have seen that failure over and over again, here and 
> throughout the world.
> 
> Words are important, and we need to distinguish between using force (police 
> operating under a rule of law)  and using violence (armies destroying people 
> and properties). A study by the RAND-Arroyo Center is instructive (summaries 
> and free downloads available)
> 
>       http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG819/
> 
> We would do well in the year ahead to recall the Unibomber and Timothy 
> McVeigh. Armies would not have reduced those risks; even a police state could 
> not have prevented them. We need also to consider Somalia's pirates. Should 
> our army invade that country? 
> 
> I'm also attaching Jesse Mathewson's critical review of the RAND suggestions.
> 
>       
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-new-Police-Force-for-the-by-James-McKinzie-091229-413.html
> 
> Bob
>